Author
Topic: The Orthodox Study Bible (Read 7016 times)

I've often read online that I should buy The Orthodox Study Bible, as it is crucial for Christians to own. But what I want to know is what sets it apart from other bibles? I should probably ask what makes this bible so crucial that I can't get from another biblical translation or even another book such as "The Orthodox Church" by Ware?

I've often read online that I should buy The Orthodox Study Bible, as it is crucial for Christians to own. But what I want to know is what sets it apart from other bibles? I should probably ask what makes this bible so crucial that I can't get from another biblical translation or even another book such as "The Orthodox Church" by Ware?

Thanks,

M

I think the main thing it offers versus many Bibles is the added commentary.

The bottom of every page has commentary on specific Scriptures from an Orthodox POV.

It also has a few 'articles' on specific subjects such as the Thoeotokos and whether or not God has been faithful to His people - Israel, etc.

I rushed out and bought one as soon as I discovered Orthodoxy and I would say it's been helpful to me... but I've heard some on here criticize it as well.

I would recommend it personally.

†IC XC††NI KA†

Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

I've often read online that I should buy The Orthodox Study Bible, as it is crucial for Christians to own. But what I want to know is what sets it apart from other bibles? I should probably ask what makes this bible so crucial that I can't get from another biblical translation or even another book such as "The Orthodox Church" by Ware?

1. Its Old Testament is based on the version used by the Orthodox Church (LXX), although the N.E.T.S. is probably better for serious academic use. Nearly all other English Bibles are based on the Hebrew MT, which differs considerably in places.

2. You could probably get more and better commentary from other books (Ancient Christian Commentaries on Scripture, for example), but you'd need a lot of them - most people don't have the time or money involved in that level of study. "The Orthodox Church" by Met. Kallistos is definitely not a substitute for a biblical commentary.

The OSB is good I think especially for Western inquirers of Orthodoxy. It is basic, sound, & reliable although its style may seem unusual to those whose faith expression is patristic oriented or of old world cultural norms although both are still part of its fabric (for ex. there may only be one prayer of veneration to the Theotokos in the supplements although in the Bible study her role in our Lord's plan of salvation is well explained). The complete OT & NT OSB has an Orthodox Psalter (& translated a such) although the original NT & Psalms edition has the western Psalter in the NKJV.

The OSB is good for the comments but it is also bad for the comments. The reason I say this is that it is one interpretation of the writings, by a group of scholars and doesn't account for other POVs on the subject. Not to say that the interpretations of the scriptures are wrong, but limiting yourself to one source for an explanation of a passage can be dangerous.

The OSB is good for the comments but it is also bad for the comments. The reason I say this is that it is one interpretation of the writings, by a group of scholars and doesn't account for other POVs on the subject. Not to say that the interpretations of the scriptures are wrong, but limiting yourself to one source for an explanation of a passage can be dangerous.

-Nick

So basically you'd like no commentary at all, or a 22 volume set of commentaries to come with it?

i love the orthodox study Bible by the way, metropolitan kallistos is one of the bishops who worked on it(and he is from my country!)

if i was a PhD student, i would go for something more 'scholarly', but i think even all scholars should read the orthodox study Bible firstbefore moving on to other texts. it has all the basics and is great forthose of us who did not grow up orthodox.

The OSB is good for the comments but it is also bad for the comments. The reason I say this is that it is one interpretation of the writings, by a group of scholars and doesn't account for other POVs on the subject. Not to say that the interpretations of the scriptures are wrong, but limiting yourself to one source for an explanation of a passage can be dangerous.

-Nick

So basically you'd like no commentary at all, or a 22 volume set of commentaries to come with it?

I'd say many of the comments are of limited usefulness. First of all, you have all the Patristic quotes which are unsourced. Then you have interpretive comments which presumably come from the editors, which also don't provide much background as to where they drew these conclusions from. It's not so much a matter of accounting for other POV's because they can't really account for their own either. I think the book was definitely rushed- they should have given it another year at least.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

The OSB took years to complete & I highly doubt it was "rushed", it bears the approval of American clerical hierarchs, & many priests worked on it. I know the priest who translated the book of Joshua (for ex.) for the complete OT/NT OSB. There was much love & sweat put into this project, costs to consider, & a desire to actually present it to the laity.

The OSB is good for the comments but it is also bad for the comments. The reason I say this is that it is one interpretation of the writings, by a group of scholars and doesn't account for other POVs on the subject. Not to say that the interpretations of the scriptures are wrong, but limiting yourself to one source for an explanation of a passage can be dangerous.

-Nick

So basically you'd like no commentary at all, or a 22 volume set of commentaries to come with it?

I'd say many of the comments are of limited usefulness. First of all, you have all the Patristic quotes which are unsourced. Then you have interpretive comments which presumably come from the editors, which also don't provide much background as to where they drew these conclusions from. It's not so much a matter of accounting for other POV's because they can't really account for their own either. I think the book was definitely rushed- they should have given it another year at least.

I think this is partly to do with the target audience. I think the OSB is generally intended to be "My First Orthodox Bible", containing very basic apologetics and such. There is only so much you can put into a study Bible.

That's why I agree, they should release an OSB without all the commentary and study stuff. I just want to read it, I don't want all this other stuff. If I want commentary, I'll seek it out elsewhere. It's a different target audience. (It also would function better as a pew Bible without all the extra material. Yet there are parishes with bulky OSB's stuffed into the pew racks.)

Its interesting for all the flak the OSB has taken that more other Orthodox translations have emerged in America than probably a century of time prior to the OSB. I think some opinions are just hostile to us average joes having basic faith literacy but perhaps lacking extensive background in patristics & ecclesiology.

Its interesting for all the flak the OSB has taken that more other Orthodox translations have emerged in America than probably a century of time prior to the OSB. I think some opinions are just hostile to us average joes having basic faith literacy but perhaps lacking extensive background in patristics & ecclesiology.

When the notes include a quote by, say, St. Basil, would naming the work of St. Basil's whence the quote was derived make the OSB harder for you to use?

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Its interesting for all the flak the OSB has taken that more other Orthodox translations have emerged in America than probably a century of time prior to the OSB. I think some opinions are just hostile to us average joes having basic faith literacy but perhaps lacking extensive background in patristics & ecclesiology.

When the notes include a quote by, say, St. Basil, would naming the work of St. Basil's whence the quote was derived make the OSB harder for you to use?

No......I am not trying to negate patristics & I have read St. Basil the Great's: "On the Holy Spirit", "On wealth & Poverty" by St.John Chrysostom & others. I also carry a basic catechism of the faith that has no patristic quotes but was overseen by the bishop to be published so circumstances vary.

That's why I agree, they should release an OSB without all the commentary and study stuff. I just want to read it, I don't want all this other stuff. If I want commentary, I'll seek it out elsewhere. It's a different target audience.

Likewise. I don't much care for study Bibles of any stripe, but I do want a reasonably affordable translation of the LXX.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

the orthodox study Bible doesn't have that much commentary and it's getting cheaper as more are printed.you can even get it from some largely protestant bookshops in uk

Yeah, the Orthodox Study Bible is one of the only Orthodox-related texts that I can find in Protestant bookstores. I've also seen a copy at just about every chain bookstore in my area.

Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.--"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18--I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --Life went on no matter who was wrong or right

It is a rushed job, despite the years spent on it, because it is lacking in content, editing, and accuracy. Much of the commentary is redundant, some is nonsensical, and some is either questionable or not at all Orthodox. The OSB leaves much to be desired, but perhaps the most glaring absences are transparency (no attributions, no notes on how, exactly, the "translation" was done--each book is different) and endorsement (no Orthodox bishop or synod has given a blessing or imprimatur. The OSB is billed as far more than it actually is, IMO.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

1. If the OSB is a "first bible" then what would be a good "second bible" and so forth?

2. Personally I don't see how having over 50 translations of the bible is good. I don't have the time to study that many books, plus I don't have the time to have to read and write Greek & Hebrew just to have a relationship with God.

3. Also, I don't see why it is so hard to translate the LXX or Hebrew OT into English, Swahili, Mandarin etc. without adding to or changing the translation? I use the NIV Student Bible and although it has helped me out a ton, I can see where it is totally geared towards the Protestant Christian, which is not what I consider myself anymore.

The OSB is good for the comments but it is also bad for the comments. The reason I say this is that it is one interpretation of the writings, by a group of scholars and doesn't account for other POVs on the subject. Not to say that the interpretations of the scriptures are wrong, but limiting yourself to one source for an explanation of a passage can be dangerous.

-Nick

So basically you'd like no commentary at all, or a 22 volume set of commentaries to come with it?

I'd say many of the comments are of limited usefulness. First of all, you have all the Patristic quotes which are unsourced. Then you have interpretive comments which presumably come from the editors, which also don't provide much background as to where they drew these conclusions from. It's not so much a matter of accounting for other POV's because they can't really account for their own either. I think the book was definitely rushed- they should have given it another year at least.

To be honest, except for looking up something in a deuterocanonical book, I never really used the OSB. That's not meant to be a slight against them, I just never was lured to it away from my KJV chain reference Bible. Also, regarding the Fathers, you can find most of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers and other such works around the internet, can find some interesting stuff on Google books, and CCEL allows you to download many of the works of the Church Fathers that they have. Then again, I suppose not everyone is as geeky as people on OC.net are, and are going to spend hours doing searches through notepad files trying to find out what the Fathers said about this or that passage.

The OSB is geared primarily toward a Western audience, expected to have likely been inculcated w/ a certain amount of Western influence. It's not meant to be an end-all/be-all Bible... How could you possibly expect to pack all that is Orthodoxy in one Bible?

It's meant for enquirers or beginners into Orthodoxy... You read the verses; you read the commentary. It helps to start to dispel some of the Western errors. Protestants especially I think probably need a quick commentary on everything because so much of what they've been taught and believe is simply not correct.

Obviously once you're immersed in the Church... you'll be digging deeper (hopefully anyway).

†IC XC††NI KA†

Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.

Just make sure that whatever Bible you get, it includes the WHOLE Bible, that is, what so many call the Apocrypha. Since obtaining the OSB I have been introduced to the Wisdom of Sirach, and hope to - after finishing it - read the rest of the Bible that I didn't know existed when I was active as a Protestant.

I have a copy of the OSB, but I seldom use it. I really don't see what it has to offer over other Bibles, and I do not find the commentary all that helpful. If they came out with a version that dispensed with all the fluff and commentary, making it a bit more handy, I would probably buy another copy and actually use it.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

So it appears a lot of people do not care for the OSB, or at least don't care for the commentaries. It also sounds like I need a bible with the Apocrypha.

So, what is a good bible (good as in "easy to read") that includes the Apocrypha?

Btw, I can't understand some words in the KJV. Anything but will be fine. Thanks.

M

The problem is that in Orthodoxy we use the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament, not the Hebrew Old Testament. There are very few Bible translations that have this. Most of the differences are minor, but some are rather major.

In general, any Catholic Bible should be okay. It will be missing 3 Maccabees (and 3 Esdras and 4 Maccabees, which are sometimes included in Orthodox Bibles but not always), but close enough. The Revised Standard Version and Douay-Rheims are good options, but again, be careful that the Apocrypha is included. If it is, it probably will be placed in its own section, which makes reading Daniel and Esther rather difficult.

Probably the best option, if you don't mind having two books, is to choose a good overall Bible (I recommend the Oxford Revised Standard Version [not the New Revised Standard Version]) for general reading, and the New English Translation of the Septuagint to supplement for the Old Testament.

Hopefully someday we will have an English Orthodox Bible that is universally accepted by the Church for lay and liturgical use, but for now we have to kind of patch together whatever is available.

(Or we could learn Greek or Slavonic and get an Orthodox Bible in one of those languages, which are plentiful.)

This translation is based stylistically on the KJV... I would love to see a printed edition of this some day, along with a New Testament.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

"In 1998 St Athanasius Academy sought to answer the question by first seeking the blessing of our beloved Metr Philip." (The Word, May 2003 p.5) From article "An Update on the OSB- OT Project.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

"In 1998 St Athanasius Academy sought to answer the question by first seeking the blessing of our beloved Metr Philip." (The Word, May 2003 p.5) From article "An Update on the OSB- OT Project.

That's not what is meant by saying the text is blessed. Metropolitans bless a lot of things. But there is no statement in the book saying that a certain synod or bishop authorizes this text for use or endorses it to be read.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

"In 1998 St Athanasius Academy sought to answer the question by first seeking the blessing of our beloved Metr Philip." (The Word, May 2003 p.5) From article "An Update on the OSB- OT Project.

That's not what is meant by saying the text is blessed. Metropolitans bless a lot of things. But there is no statement in the book saying that a certain synod or bishop authorizes this text for use or endorses it to be read.

There probably never will be an "official" translation & even if so, it still may not please you.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

"In 1998 St Athanasius Academy sought to answer the question by first seeking the blessing of our beloved Metr Philip." (The Word, May 2003 p.5) From article "An Update on the OSB- OT Project.

That's not what is meant by saying the text is blessed. Metropolitans bless a lot of things. But there is no statement in the book saying that a certain synod or bishop authorizes this text for use or endorses it to be read.

There probably never will be an "official" translation & even if so, it still may not please you.

I'm sorry you made that remark.In any case, there are many official translations in other languages. Some of them have problems. My main problem with the OSB is that it is a half-measure that is touted as more than what it is. It is also not official. I fail to see how this means I cannot be pleased by anything.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

ok, u can get them all in new revised standard version from cambridge university press, 1989, isbn 978-0-521-50776-9i got it a few years ago, but i was confused about 3 esdras (my 'apocrapha' says it's called '2 esdras' but '3 esdras' in slavonic and '4 esdras' in the appendix to the latin vulgate), so i hope u know which one i mean!

to my reasonably analytical (university trained but not in theology or historical documents) mind, it looks like something that is added on, in a very different style to the other esdras books, like it is not an original book, but appeared quite a bit later.

now, i am not trying to start a debate or offend anyone who disagrees, but i want to ask, 'which churches consider it canonical?'

4 maccabees does seem to be similar to the other books, but again, which churches consider it canonical?

is it ok to ask this? maybe you won't take it personally or be upset

the other deuterocanonical books (a better term than 'apocrapha', meaning 'second canon', or second group of scripture) seem to me to be very beautiful and they are a great loss to those churches which don't have them. especially tobit and sirach and the story of daniel and susanna.

"No Orthodox bishop" etc. "has given a blessing" well then what do the names of all SCOBA hierarchs in each edition signify? I presume that these do not constitute an impramatur so what sort of oversight do their names constitute?

A printed name is just a name, not necessarily an endorsement. The OSB was a project by some Orthodox, but not one specifically blessed by a synod.

They are designated as an oversight (appropriately?) committee so they have given a form of permission but not blessing i guess???

It is not an official translation/publication of the Church, only of Zondervan.

"In 1998 St Athanasius Academy sought to answer the question by first seeking the blessing of our beloved Metr Philip." (The Word, May 2003 p.5) From article "An Update on the OSB- OT Project.

That's not what is meant by saying the text is blessed. Metropolitans bless a lot of things. But there is no statement in the book saying that a certain synod or bishop authorizes this text for use or endorses it to be read.

There probably never will be an "official" translation & even if so, it still may not please you.

I'm sorry you made that remark.In any case, there are many official translations in other languages. Some of them have problems. My main problem with the OSB is that it is a half-measure that is touted as more than what it is. It is also not official. I fail to see how this means I cannot be pleased by anything.

I am sorry I made it too & ask for your forgiveness on this. This is just one of many things I am having exaspiration re what to believe in some areas, what's reliable to use, what is tradtion etc......ya da ya da ya da....

Well I know of inquirers to Orthodoxy who may have little else to go with and I have heard many views on the OSB. I have spoken to a priest of course & a prominent cradle, old world Orthodox scholar ( I will not name drop because I do not think these men would want me to) re the OSB & it must indeed be most imperfect. On another forum there is a potential catachumen in spiritual shark waters attending DLs, using an OSB (along w/ other & "better" readings) in approaching the faith etc.. I would tell her to stick with the OSB if the situation arose,"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?"

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Neither are automobiles; I still use them regularly and to beneficial effect. I do understand the point, but my priest recommended I get and use the OSB. It was useful to me. As a Catechumen, should I have refused and told him that I didn't believe it was Orthodox to have a study bible? Do I view the Bible and studying it the same way that a Protestant fundamentalist would? Of course not. Fr. Thomas Hopko and many others have pointed out that scriptural knowledge has been a longstanding weakness among Orthodox laity. Perhaps the development of the OSB is an attempt to combat that, while simultaneously providing a guided and familiar way to absorb more scripture-focused Christians into the true Church.

I also find it less than helpful that we (anonymous laypeople on the internet) can so easily make pronouncements of what is and isn't Orthodox.

Neither are automobiles; I still use them regularly and to beneficial effect....I also find it less than helpful that we (anonymous laypeople on the internet) can so easily make pronouncements of what is and isn't Orthodox.

To clarify what I said earlier today, that was my point. I have an OSB and use it regularly. It's one tool in the toolbox. Many will use it frequently and effectively. Others will prefer other methods. In that sense, I suppose, it's very Orthodox (if, of course, I'm allowed to make that pronouncement ).

our Lord Jesus Himself exhorted His hearers to 'search the scriptures' (john 5) and so did the apostles who wrote the books of the new testament.i wonder,is it better to run away from all scripture reading just in case someone might think you are getting too protestant?maybe, we should just let those who are not clergy stand at the back of the church, not quite hear what is said, not have time to ask questions (few priests for very many people) and then just watch as they slide towards damnation?

saint john chrysostom was not a protestant. the monks and nuns who faithfully copied out the Holy Bible by hand and distributed it or sold it for hundreds of years were not protestants.

so why should we now associate Bible reading with protestants?is it not because of our failure to adequately teach and instruct the faithful over the last 500 years that there are even any protestants?should we not rather be ashamed that there are so many people with a faulty understanding of theology who are captured by the beautiful words of God so much that they can help reading it every day?should we not rather 'spur one another on to good deeds' and instruct and encourage those who are not clergy to see the beauty in the Holy Bible so they learn from the church, study hard and become the next generation of priests/priests' wives/nuns?

St John Chrysostom didn't think so. He practically couldn't pay people to read the Bible.

I don't think many people had access to Bibles in Chrysostom's day.

We know the rich definitely did have the scriptures in their homes.

As for augustin's comment... It is most certainly "Orthodox". Reading the scriptures is definitely something we must do, and our Saints support this idea.

While laypeople having direct, tangible access to the scriptures is a relatively recent development, that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox. It's most certainly not harmful (depending on how ones approaches it).

Laypeople having access to writings of the Saints is newer as well, but that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox.

St John Chrysostom didn't think so. He practically couldn't pay people to read the Bible.

I don't think many people had access to Bibles in Chrysostom's day.

We know the rich definitely did have the scriptures in their homes.

As for augustin's comment... It is most certainly "Orthodox". Reading the scriptures is definitely something we must do, and our Saints support this idea.

While laypeople having direct, tangible access to the scriptures is a relatively recent development, that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox. It's most certainly not harmful (depending on how ones approaches it).

Laypeople having access to writings of the Saints is newer as well, but that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox.

I'm not saying that it is not Orthodox. I am just stating that the universal availability of the written Word is a relatively recent luxury, not to mention general literacy.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

St John Chrysostom didn't think so. He practically couldn't pay people to read the Bible.

I don't think many people had access to Bibles in Chrysostom's day.

We know the rich definitely did have the scriptures in their homes.

As for augustin's comment... It is most certainly "Orthodox". Reading the scriptures is definitely something we must do, and our Saints support this idea.

While laypeople having direct, tangible access to the scriptures is a relatively recent development, that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox. It's most certainly not harmful (depending on how ones approaches it).

Laypeople having access to writings of the Saints is newer as well, but that doesn't mean it's not Orthodox.

I'm not saying that it is not Orthodox. I am just stating that the universal availability of the written Word is a relatively recent luxury, not to mention general literacy.

This depends very much on place and time. From what I've seen, literacy and book owning amongst the masses is not, historically, an ascending scale, but one that has rises and dips, depending on other historical circumstances. Literacy rates have risen and fallen over time in various places.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

It was literate, educated cradle Orthodox who have created agencies like the OCMC, IOCC, etc. and the work done by gruops like these is charity and helping to maintain the Orthodox faith in lands that might be vulnerable to non Orthodox proselytes. I guess some opinions favor that the laity be Biblically illiterate though.